Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 316 SW2D 396 - Tobin v. Garcia

Tobin v. Garcia’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

255
cited by 255 later decisions
3
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

254 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 255 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. McBride (1958), Gaines v. Hamman (1962)

254 state decisions

66019581960197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Wright v. Wright · Rogers v. Royalty Pooling Company · Merritt v. Estes' Administratrix · Garcia v. Tobin · Tobin v. Valerio

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 255 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[W]hen, as in this case, both parties file motions for summary judgment and one such motion is granted, then the trial court’s judgment becomes final and ap-pealable, and on appeal the Court of Civil Appeals should determine all questions presented. If reversible error is found, the court should render such judgment as the trial court should have rendered, Rule 434, .. .”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is by reference to [Adams’] brief that we have found absence of any complaint of error by the trial court in having granted summary judgment for his adversary. This fact is evidenced by the point and by the language thereunder to which we have referred to seek to determine whether there was any such complaint of error in the summary judgment which was granted to the defendant bank. Rather than any such complaint we find that appellant Adams has confined himself to point of error and complaint thereunder of no more than the court’s failure to grant the motion for summary judgment filed by him. Could we have known of this at the time the clerk received the transcript in the case it would not have been filed, for an appeal does not lie from an order overruling a motion for summary judgment. Obviously it is the theory of [Adams] that because both he and his adversary filed motions for summary judgment, followed by order of the court granting the motion of his adversary and denying his own motion, he can predicate his appeal solely upon the denial and disregard the motion granted. That is not the law. Until there is successful attack made on appeal of the motion granted, with judgment entered in accord, the question does not exist as to whether the trial court should have granted the motion which was denied. In such a situation this court would lack authority to rule upon the contentions made of impropriety of the denial_ The appeal is dismissed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It must be kept in mind that this case has never been tried on its merits, but only on motions for summary judgment under Rule 166-A. The right to summary judgment was unknown to common law and exists in this State only by virtue of that rule. In order to be entitled to the benefits of the rule all of its terms must be complied with. This the defendants have failed to do.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.